Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GPT-4.5

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-4.5

#131

Post by daemonologist »

ekojs wrote: post #12

> Because of this, we’re evaluating whether to continue serving it in the API long-term as we balance supporting current capabilities with building future models. Seems like it's not going to be deployed for long. $75.00 / 1M tokens for input $150.00 / 1M tokens for output That's crazy prices.

Imagine if they built a reasoning model with costs like these. Sometimes it seems like they're on a trajectory to create a model which is strictly more capable than I am but which costs 100x my salary to run.

Re: GPT-4.5

#133

Post by jejeyyy77 »

hotpocket777 wrote: post #100
tempaccount420 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "We don't really know what this is good for, but spent a lot of money and time making it and are under intense pressure to announce new things right now. If you can figure something out, we need you to help us." Where is this quote from?

It’s not a quote. It is an interpretation or reading of a quote.

[flagged]

Re: GPT-4.5

#134

Post by sebastiennight »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #109
nialv7 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yeah, if the llm can keep you engaged and talking, that'll make them a lot more money; compared to if you just use it as a information retrieval tool in which case you are likely to leave after getting what you are looking for.

Since they offer a subscription, keeping you engaged just requires them to waste more compute. The ideal case would be that the LLM gives you a one shot correct response using as little compute as possible.

In a subscription business, you don't want the user to use as few resources as possible. It's the wrong optimization to make.

You want users to keep coming back as often as possible (at the lowest cost-per-run possible though). If they are not coming back they are not renewing.

So, yes, it makes sense to make answers shorter to cut on compute cost (which these SMS-length replies could accomplish) but the main point of making the AI flirtatious or "concerned" is possibly the addictive factor of having a shoulder to cry on 24/7, one that does not call you on your BS and is always supportive... for just $20 a month

The "one-shot correct response" to "I failed my exams" might be "Tough luck, try better next time" but if you do that, you will indeed use very little compute because people will cancel the subscription and never come back.

Re: GPT-4.5

#135

Post by nialv7 »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #109
nialv7 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yeah, if the llm can keep you engaged and talking, that'll make them a lot more money; compared to if you just use it as a information retrieval tool in which case you are likely to leave after getting what you are looking for.

Since they offer a subscription, keeping you engaged just requires them to waste more compute. The ideal case would be that the LLM gives you a one shot correct response using as little compute as possible.

Plus level subscription has limits too, and Pro level costs 10x more - as long as Pro users don't use ChatGPT 10x more than Plus users on average, OpenAI can benefit. There's also the user retention factor.

Re: GPT-4.5

#136

Post by isoprophlex »

harlanlewis wrote: post #53
zaptrem wrote: post #26

GPT 4.5 pricing is insane: Price Input: $75.00 / 1M tokens Cached input: $37.50 / 1M tokens Output: $150.00 / 1M tokens GPT 4o pricing for comparison: Price Input: $2.50 / 1M tokens Cached input: $1.25 / 1M tokens Output: $10.00 / 1M tokens It sounds like it's so expensive and the difference in usefulness is so lacking(?) they're not even gonna keep serving it in the API for long: > GPT‑4.5 is a very large and comput…

The price really is eye watering. At a glance, my first impression is this is something like Llama 3.1 405B, where the primary value may be realized in generating high quality synthetic data for training rather than direct use. I keep a little google spreadsheet with some charts to help visualize the landscape at a glance in terms of capability/price/throughput, bringing in the various index scores as they become ava…

Thats... incredibly thorough. Wow. Thanks for sharing this.

Re: GPT-4.5

#137

Post by lasermike026 »

Topfi wrote: post #24

Considering both this blog post and the livestream demos, I am underwhelmed. Having just finished the stream, I had a real "was that all" moment, which on one hand shows how spoiled I've gotten by new models impressing me, but on another feels like OpenAI really struggles to stay ahead of their competitors. What has been shown feels like it could be achieved using a custom system prompt on older versions of OpenAIs m…

I would rather pay for 4.5 by the query.

Re: GPT-4.5

#138

Post by sebastiennight »

eightysixfour wrote: post #115

Seeing OpenAI and Anthropic go different routes here is interesting. It is worth moving past the initial knee jerk reaction of this model being unimpressive and some of the comments about "they spent a massive amount of money and had to ship something for it..." * Anthropic appears to be making a bet that a single paradigm (reasoning) can create a model which is excellent for all use cases. * OpenAI seems to be betti…

> * OpenAI seems to be betting that you'll need an ensemble of models with different capabilities, working as a single system, to jump beyond what the reasoning models today can do.

Seems inaccurate as their most recent claim I've seen is that they expect this to be their last non-reasoning model, and are aiming to provide all capacities together in the future model releases (unifying the GPT-x and o-x lines)

See this claim on TFA:

> We believe reasoning will be a core capability of future models, and that the two approaches to scaling—pre-training and reasoning—will complement each other.

Re: GPT-4.5

#139

Post by Nition »

scythe wrote: post #101
tempaccount420 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "We don't really know what this is good for, but spent a lot of money and time making it and are under intense pressure to announce new things right now. If you can figure something out, we need you to help us." Where is this quote from?

I believe it's a "translation" in the sense of Wittgenstein's goal of philosophy: >My aim is: to teach you to pass from a piece of disguised nonsense to something that is patent nonsense.

Another great example on Hacker News is this old translation of Google's "Amazing Bet": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12793033

Re: GPT-4.5

#140

Post by crooked-v »

zaptrem wrote: post #26

GPT 4.5 pricing is insane: Price Input: $75.00 / 1M tokens Cached input: $37.50 / 1M tokens Output: $150.00 / 1M tokens GPT 4o pricing for comparison: Price Input: $2.50 / 1M tokens Cached input: $1.25 / 1M tokens Output: $10.00 / 1M tokens It sounds like it's so expensive and the difference in usefulness is so lacking(?) they're not even gonna keep serving it in the API for long: > GPT‑4.5 is a very large and comput…

Doubly so with how good Claude 3.7 Sonnet is at $3 / 1M tokens.
Post reply on HN